Antibiogram, Biochemical Reactions, and Genotypic Pattern of Biofield Treated Pseudomonas aeruginosa

By Mahendra Kumar Trivedi1, Alice Branton1, Dahryn Trivedi1, Gopal Nayak1, Mayank Gangwar2, Snehasis Jana2

1. Trivedi Global Inc. 2. Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.

Published on


Introduction: Complementary and alternative medicine such as biofield energy therapies are highly popular in biomedical health care. The study evaluates the impact of Mr. Trivedi’s biofield energy treatment on Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) to evaluate its phenotypic and genotypic characteristics.

Methods: P. aeruginosa ATCC 10145 (American Type Culture Collection) was procured from Bangalore Genei, in sealed pack and divided into control and treated groups. Treated group was subjected to biofield treatment and analyzed for antibiogram, biochemical reactions, and biotype number using automated MicroScan Walk-Away® system on day 10. The treated sample was evaluated for DNA polymorphism by Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and 16S rDNA sequencing to establish the phylogenetic relationship, the epidemiological relatedness and genetic characteristics.

Results: Data showed altered sensitivity pattern in antibiotic cefotaxime from intermediate to decreased β-lactamases activity, with four-fold decreased minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), i.e. 32 to ≤8 µg/mL as compared to control. Similarly, cefotetan and extended-spectrum-β-lactamases (ESBL-b Scrn) showed decrease in MIC values as compared to the control group. Nitrate reported for negative biochemical reaction i.e. positive (+) to negative (-) after biofield treatment on P. aeruginosa. The biotyping showed a change in biotype number (02063722) as compared to the control (02063726), without altering the microorganism. RAPD analysis showed an average range of 30 to 50% of polymorphism, while 16S rDNA sequencing analyzed treated sample as Pseudomonas aeruginosa (GenBank Accession Number: EU090892) with 99% identity of gene sequencing data.

Conclusion: These results suggest that Mr. Trivedi’s unique biofield energy treatment on P. aeruginosa has an impact to alter the antimicrobial sensitivity pattern and MIC values, thus it can be used as an alternate integrative approach of energy medicine in near future.


1. NJ Palleroni (1984) Genus I. Pseudomonas. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, US.

2. Vos PD, Goor M, Gillis M, Ley JD (1985) Ribosomal ribonucleic acid cistron similarities of phytopathogenic Pseudomonas species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 35: 169-184.

3. Tyler SD, Strathdee CA, Rozee KR, Johnson WM (1995) Oligonucleotide primers designed to differentiate pathogenic pseudomonads on the basis of the sequencing of genes coding for 16S-23S rRNA internal transcribed spacers. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2: 448-453.

4. Keel C, Weller DM, Natsch A, Défago G, Cook RJ, et al. (1996) Conservation of the 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol biosynthesis locus among fluorescent Pseudomonas strains from diverse geographic locations. Appl Environ Microbiol 62: 552-563.

5. Acar JF (1997) Consequences of bacterial resistance to antibiotics in medical practice. Clin Infect Dis 24 Suppl 1: S17-18.

6. Kerr KG, Snelling AM (2009) Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a formidable and ever-present adversary. J Hosp Infect 73: 338-344.

7. Rossolini GM, Mantengoli E (2005) Treatment and control of severe infections caused by multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Microbiol Infect 11 Suppl 4: 17-32.

8. Poole K (2005) Aminoglycoside resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49: 479-487.

9. Strateva T, Yordanov D (2009) Pseudomonas aeruginosa - a phenomenon of bacterial resistance. J Med Microbiol 58: 1133-1148.

10. Carson CF, Riley TV (2003) Non-antibiotic therapies for infectious diseases. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep 27 Suppl: S143-146.

11. Ulrey RK, Barksdale SM, Zhou W, van Hoek ML (2014) Cranberry proanthocyanidins have anti-biofilm properties against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Complement Altern Med 14: 499.

12. Movaffaghi Z, Farsi M (2009) Biofield therapies: biophysical basis and biological regulations? Complement Ther Clin Pract 15: 35-37.

13. Center for frontier medicine in biofield science (2007) University of Arizona and Institute for Frontier Science.

14. Jain S, Mills PJ (2010) Biofield therapies: helpful or full of hype? A best evidence synthesis. Int J Behav Med 17: 1-16.

15. Prakash S, Chowdhury AR, Gupta A (2015) Monitoring the human health by measuring the biofield “aura”: An overview. IJAER 10: 27637-27641.

16. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Nayak G, Jana S, Latiyal O (2015) Influence of biofield treatment on physical, structural and spectral properties of boron nitride. J Material Sci Eng 4: 181.

17. Trivedi MK, Nayak G, Patil S, Tallapragada RM, Latiyal O (2015) Studies of the atomic and crystalline characteristics of ceramic oxide nano powders after bio field treatment. Ind Eng Manage 4: 161.

18. Sances F, Flora E, Patil S, Spence A, Shinde V (2013) Impact of biofield treatment on ginseng and organic blueberry yield. Agrivita J Agric Sci 35: 22-29.

19. Lenssen AW (2013) Biofield and fungicide seed treatment influences on soybean productivity, seed quality and weed community. Agricultural Journal 8: 138-143.

20. Nayak G, Altekar N (2015) Effect of biofield treatment on plant growth and adaptation. J Environ Health Sci 1: 1-9.

21. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Singh R, Jana S, et al. (2015) An impact of biofield treatment on spectroscopic characterization of pharmaceutical compounds. Mod Chem Appl 3: 159.

22. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Bairwa K, Jana S (2015) Phenotypic and biotypic characterization of Klebsiella oxytoca: An impact of biofield treatment. J Microb Biochem Technol 7: 203-206.

23. Trivedi MK, Patil S, Shettigar H, Gangwar M, Jana S (2015) An effect of biofield treatment on Multidrug-resistant Burkholderia cepacia: A multihost pathogen. J Trop Dis 3: 167.

24. Fader RC, Weaver E, Fossett R, Toyras M, Vanderlaan J, et al. (2013) Multilaboratory study of the biomic automated well-reading instrument versus MicroScan WalkAway for reading MicroScan antimicrobial susceptibility and identification panels. J Clin Microbiol 51: 1548-1554.

25. Welsh J, McClelland M (1990) Fingerprinting genomes using PCR with arbitrary primers. Nucleic Acids Res 18: 7213-7218.

26. Alm EW, Oerther DB, Larsen N, Stahl DA, Raskin L (1996) The oligonucleotide probe database. Appl Environ Microbiol 62: 3557-3559.

27. Kumar S, Tamura K, Nei M (2004) MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment. Brief Bioinform 5: 150-163.

28. Orrett FA (2004) Antimicrobial susceptibility survey of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from clinical sources. J Natl Med Assoc 96: 1065-1069.

29. Sivanmaliappan TS, Sevanan M (2011) Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Diabetes Patients with Foot Ulcers. Int J Microbiol 2011: 605195.

30. de Man P, van Der Veeke E, Leemreijze M, van Leeuwen W, Vos G, et al. (2001) Enterobacter species in a pediatric hospital: horizontal transfer or selection in individual patients? J Infect Dis 184: 211-214.

31. Ward A, Richards DM (1985) Cefotetan. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs 30: 382-426.

32. Kubo M, Kato Y, Inamori Y (1985) Studies on the combination action of sisomicin, gentamicin and cefmenoxime, ceftizoxime, cefoperazone, cefotetan against Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Jpn J Antibiot 38: 3487-3496.

33. Zavascki AP, Carvalhaes CG, Picao RC, Gales AC (2010) Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii: Resistance mechanisms and implications for therapy. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 8: 71-93.

34. Aggarwal R, Chaudhary U, Bala K (2008) Detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 51: 222-224.

35. Arai T, Otake M, Enomoto S, Goto S, Kuwahara S (1970) Determination of Pseudomonas aeruginosa by biochemical test methods. II. Acylamidase test, a modified biochemical test for the identification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Jpn J Microbiol 14: 279-284.

36. Williams JG, Kubelik AR, Livak KJ, Rafalski JA, Tingey SV (1990) DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 18: 6531-6535.

37. Williams JG, Hanafey MK, Rafalski JA, Tingey SV (1993) Genetic analysis using random amplified polymorphic DNA markers. Methods Enzymol 218: 704-740.

38. Woese CR (1987) Bacterial evolution. Microbiol Rev 51: 221-271.

39. Rubik B (2002) The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med 8: 703-717.

40. Clarke TC, Black LI, Stussman BJ, Barnes PM, Nahin RL (2015) Trends in the use of complementary health approaches among adults: United States, 2002-2012. Natl Health Stat Report : 1-16.

Cite this work

Researchers should cite this work as follows:

  • Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, Nayak G, Gangwar M, et al. (2015) Antibiogram, Biochemical Reactions, and Genotypic Pattern of Biofield Treated Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Trop Dis 4: 181. doi:10.4172/2329-891X.1000181

  • Mahendra Kumar Trivedi; Alice Branton; Dahryn Trivedi; Gopal Nayak; Mayank Gangwar; Snehasis Jana (2019), "Antibiogram, Biochemical Reactions, and Genotypic Pattern of Biofield Treated Pseudomonas aeruginosa,"

    BibTex | EndNote